PM Modi conferred with 2018 Seoul Peace Prize

Jamnagar, Apr 7: A 14-month-old baby boy, who had tested positive for coronavirus in Gujarat's Jamnagar district on April 5, died of multiple organ failure on Tuesday, said officials.

The toddler, son of a migrant labourer-couple having no recent travel history, died in the evening at a government hospital in Jamnagar, said an official release.

He was in a critical condition ever since he was admitted to the hospital, it said.

The boy, who tested positive for coronavirus two days ago, was as on ventilator support and eventually died due to multiple organ failure, said the release.

He becomes the youngest patient to succumb to COVID-19 in Gujarat, where the death toll has now gone up to 16.

The baby was the first and the only case of coronavirus infection so far in entire Jamnagar district and the youngest to be diagnosed with the disease in Gujarat.

Ever since he tested coronavirus positive, the authorities had been tracing the source of his infection.

His parents are from Uttar Pradesh and work as casual labourers in factories in the port city.

His parents, who have no travel history in the recent past, are asymptomatic (not showing symptoms) and kept under quarantine, officials said.

The locality where the couple resides in Dared village near Jamnagar city has been put under complete lockdown to check the spread of the virus, they said.

Gujarat has so far recorded 175 coronavirus positive cases and 16 fatalities.

Baharampore, Jan 30: Two persons were killed and one was injured in a clash over a protest programme against the CAA and the proposed NRC in West Bengal's Murshidabad district on Wednesday, police said.

The incident occured after an argument broke out between the two sides at Jalangi over a protest programme opposing Citizenship Amendment Act.

According to the police, a scuffle broke out between the local TMC leaders and residents' forum 'Nagarik Mancha', which was observing a shutdown in the area against the amended citizenship act and the proposed country-wide NRC.

The residents' forum was asked to withdraw the shutdown and the situation turned violent as both sides came to blows and hurled bombs at each other. Several two-wheelers and cars were damaged and set on fire during the clash.

Local TMC MP Abu Taher, denied that the party was involved in the clash and alleged that the violence was by Congress and CPI(M) supporters.

"I have requested the police to look into the incident. The culprits should be immediately arrested," he said.

Senior Congress leader and MLA Manoj Chakraborty said that the party was not involved in the incident and demanded judicial inquiry into it.

The injured have been rushed to Murshidabad Medical College and Hospital here, the police said.

The Muslim-majority district had witnessed violence and arson during the anti-CAA protests across the state in December last year.

West Bengal became the fourth state after Left-ruled Kerala, and Punjab and Rajasthan, where the Congress is in power, to have passed a resolution on January 27 against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. The state assembly had on September 6, 2019, passed a resolution against NRC.

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.